9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission of the offence of money laundering under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, cannot be justified. Interim stay granted in respect of all further proceedings - List the matters after two weeks. - S.S.SUNDAR, J. AND P.B.BALAJI, J. ORDER S.S.SUNDAR, J. The Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the respondent in ECIR/CEZO-1/17/2020 dated 23.03.2020 and to direct the respondent to release the petitioner forthwith from the custody. 2. On the interpretation of several provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, though several legal issues were argued before this Bench, this Court is inclined to consider the Miscellaneous Petition for stay on the admitted facts and circumstances of the case with a view to protect the rights of parties during the pendency of writ petition. 3. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Miscellaneous Petition for stay are as follows:- 4. The writ petitioner states that he is an investor, having business transactions with several persons including the de- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Agency (LEA) suspecting his involvement in relation to the crime registered at the instance of the de-facto complainant Mr.Suresh Venkatachari. 8. It appears that the writ petitioner's name was subsequently included as accused No.10 on the basis of another report in April 2019 in Crime No.39 of 2019. It was thereafter, the writ petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.15869 of 2019 before this Court, to quash the FIR on various grounds. This Court was pleased to order stay of investigation in Crime No.39 of 2019 insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned. 9. However, it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that he has received summons from the respondent herein under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to appear before the respondent on 09.01.2023 based on the impugned proceedings. 10. When the writ petitioner appeared before the respondent on 23.03.2023, he was arrested. It is alleged by the writ petitioner that he was not given any valid reason except a two page Memo of Arrest. Though it is stated that the grounds of Arrest were not communicated to the writ petitioner, it is admitted that he was remanded to judicial custody on 24.03.2023. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. (c) The interpretation suggested by the petitioners, that only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property that the offence of Section 3 would be complete, stands rejected. (d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, u nless it is so registered with the j urisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum . If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of moneylaundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him. 15. The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of shares of 8K Miles. From the allegation now found against the petitioner, it is made explicit that the petitioner is not involved in the offence registered in Crime No.39 of 2019 before CCB-I, Chennai. Section 2(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, defines 'proceeds of crime', to mean any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property. 18. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as, the writ petitioner is not an accused in the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant Mr.Suresh Venkatachari, the writ petitioner cannot be prosecuted for an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 19. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon Paragraph No.467(v)(d) in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (extracted above) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically pointed out that the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
